Forums > Social Discussion > Pick-and-Mix Religious
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
and behold!
464 posts
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
and behold!
464 posts
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Posted:
There are many religions out there each with their own set of rules and laws on morality. I would say things like "no sex before marriage" is pretty simple to understand. Yet, there are still people out there who would still consider themselves a part of that religion after consciously breaking that law and many more. Are religions really that convenient? Do people really believe they could get into heaven by satisfying what's easy for them to follow while omitting things which cramp their style?
Surely wouldn't that means I could follow one thing and consider myself religious? And if the bible is to be taken literally, shouldn't we treat women as second class citizen and make homosexuality illegal? If it is OK to pick and choose which you want to follow then doesn't that suggest you dispute with the idea that the literature you are reading is indeed the word of God? And if you dispute one word, then what makes the rest of the book anymore true?
There are many religions out there each with their own set of rules and laws on morality. I would say things like "no sex before marriage" is pretty simple to understand. Yet, there are still people out there who would still consider themselves a part of that religion after consciously breaking that law and many more. Are religions really that convenient? Do people really believe they could get into heaven by satisfying what's easy for them to follow while omitting things which cramp their style?
Surely wouldn't that means I could follow one thing and consider myself religious? And if the bible is to be taken literally, shouldn't we treat women as second class citizen and make homosexuality illegal? If it is OK to pick and choose which you want to follow then doesn't that suggest you dispute with the idea that the literature you are reading is indeed the word of God? And if you dispute one word, then what makes the rest of the book anymore true?
Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?
Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
This is why I always say I am not religious, I just practice spiritual awareness! interesting topic though, I will be watching it unfold...
This is why I always say I am not religious, I just practice spiritual awareness! interesting topic though, I will be watching it unfold...
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,191 posts
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,191 posts
Location: Sihanoukville, cambodia
Posted:
I think its more of a case of evolution of a religion.
In this day and age, its almost impossible to stick to certain "rules" in a religion, due to the open society we live in.
If every christian went around with the attitude of all women are second class citizens, and homosexuality should be illegal, we would have even more wars/riots etc thean we already have.
Also many counries dominant religions also have to co-exist with the less dominant ones.
If you walked down the street in almost any big british city, threw a big net over a hundred people or so, you could expect to find people from many races and religions under it.
I think its perfectly fair for somebody to say they are christian/jewish/buddhist whatever without necessarily conforming to every rule or viewpoint within that religion.
Personally I have no specific religion, but at the same time I do respect those that have, and the various beliefs they may have, even if they differ from my own.
I think its more of a case of evolution of a religion.
In this day and age, its almost impossible to stick to certain "rules" in a religion, due to the open society we live in.
If every christian went around with the attitude of all women are second class citizens, and homosexuality should be illegal, we would have even more wars/riots etc thean we already have.
Also many counries dominant religions also have to co-exist with the less dominant ones.
If you walked down the street in almost any big british city, threw a big net over a hundred people or so, you could expect to find people from many races and religions under it.
I think its perfectly fair for somebody to say they are christian/jewish/buddhist whatever without necessarily conforming to every rule or viewpoint within that religion.
Personally I have no specific religion, but at the same time I do respect those that have, and the various beliefs they may have, even if they differ from my own.
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
good point.
The messages, or 'rules' of religions have already been changing for thousands of years... think how many translations and revised editions of the Bible there were between the dead sea scrolls and the King James edition (hundreds!)
The original 'prophets' of any religion were still people like us, they were bound to take whatever messages they received from God/angels/Higher Self e.t.c. and interpret them in terms of their own understandings and the social, political and economic contexts of the world they lived in.
good point.
The messages, or 'rules' of religions have already been changing for thousands of years... think how many translations and revised editions of the Bible there were between the dead sea scrolls and the King James edition (hundreds!)
The original 'prophets' of any religion were still people like us, they were bound to take whatever messages they received from God/angels/Higher Self e.t.c. and interpret them in terms of their own understandings and the social, political and economic contexts of the world they lived in.
Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
GOLD Member
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Introverted
833 posts
Location: Norf London, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think it comes down to interpretation of religious teaching, rather than following a strict church-implemented dogma. I don't consider myself religious (I'm a strict agnostic
)in that I don't believe in a single conscious god or take the bible (or the koran, or the torah) literally.
But I do try to subscribe to the moral values taught by these books (at least the ones I don't think are actually immoral or blatantly hypocritical). I think if there *is* a god and he *does* judge you when you die, if he's the type of god described in these texts he'll judge you by the values you've set yourself during your life, rather than some arbitary church assigned set of rules that nobody human could stick to for their entire life.
Morality is far from black and white, as is personal belief.
I think it comes down to interpretation of religious teaching, rather than following a strict church-implemented dogma. I don't consider myself religious (I'm a strict agnostic
)in that I don't believe in a single conscious god or take the bible (or the koran, or the torah) literally. But I do try to subscribe to the moral values taught by these books (at least the ones I don't think are actually immoral or blatantly hypocritical). I think if there *is* a god and he *does* judge you when you die, if he's the type of god described in these texts he'll judge you by the values you've set yourself during your life, rather than some arbitary church assigned set of rules that nobody human could stick to for their entire life.
Morality is far from black and white, as is personal belief.
My Mind is a Ship
Emotions become the Waves
Soul is the Ocean
If a quizz is quizzical, what is a test?
BRONZE Member
and behold!
464 posts
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
and behold!
464 posts
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Posted:
I understand that a degree of tolerance is required for a fully democratic society. That is the price of freedom and it is the same reason why parties such as the BNP exists.
I was educated in a Cathlotic School and have seen the beneift of religious first hand. I think it would be interesting to dwelve into their logics and thinking. Since they have willingly disobeyed commands from their religious text then surely they don't believe it to be a concrete word of the creator? I know there are people who uses religious text as moral guidance but surely there are better means availible? Theories on psychology, socialogy and philosophy have made leaps and bounds within the last century. Things like Plato's "Cave Analogy", the "Game Theory" have allowed human interactions to be understood and analysed to a more detailed and intricate level. So what is the point of labelling yourself with religion? Why live by something which is clearly outdated and often oppressive? Why do people spend time read the bible instead of sociology books? Is concrete evidence not enough and people need something magical to get the message across to them?
EDITED_BY: Lowan (1158940130)
I understand that a degree of tolerance is required for a fully democratic society. That is the price of freedom and it is the same reason why parties such as the BNP exists.
I was educated in a Cathlotic School and have seen the beneift of religious first hand. I think it would be interesting to dwelve into their logics and thinking. Since they have willingly disobeyed commands from their religious text then surely they don't believe it to be a concrete word of the creator? I know there are people who uses religious text as moral guidance but surely there are better means availible? Theories on psychology, socialogy and philosophy have made leaps and bounds within the last century. Things like Plato's "Cave Analogy", the "Game Theory" have allowed human interactions to be understood and analysed to a more detailed and intricate level. So what is the point of labelling yourself with religion? Why live by something which is clearly outdated and often oppressive? Why do people spend time read the bible instead of sociology books? Is concrete evidence not enough and people need something magical to get the message across to them?
EDITED_BY: Lowan (1158940130)
Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?
Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Depends on your religion. The Bible, for example, teaches that we ought not to have sex until married. However, it also teaches that if we do, we may repent, be forgiven, and restored to God.
No to the first, since the Bible doesn’t teach that. Yes to the second
I agree.
The significance of the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was that they were in agreement with the Masoretic text. There is no evidence that the rules and regulations have been changed over the years... that’s just wishful thinking. Neither were there hundreds of translations between the Bible and the KJV.
The “Old Testament” is easily the most accurately preserved ancient text of it’s kind in existence. A review of the extreme measures the Hebrews went through to ensure accurate copies shows why. They were imminently concerned with “Information Hygiene” and went to unreasonable lengths to ensure that the text we have today is an accurate copy.
There are some passages, mainly in the New Testament, which can be disputed as they do not appear in some manuscripts. Occasionally, different old copies will have different wordings. This is to be expected, as translators will not always agree on the best words to use. This has never been troubling to scholars, as the differences are not significant. A good edition will have footnotes pointing out words and phrases that are rendered differently in different manuscripts.
In all, there is only one disputed passage in the entire Bible which would make a noticeable theological point. However, it is redundant as the point it makes appears in several other places.
Not that this is essential, of course. The Bible is of great help to a believer, but even the illiterate can worship God.
Written by: Lowan
There are many religions out there each with their own set of rules and laws on morality. I would say things like "no sex before marriage" is pretty simple to understand. Yet, there are still people out there who would still consider themselves a part of that religion after consciously breaking that law and many more. Are religions really that convenient?
Depends on your religion. The Bible, for example, teaches that we ought not to have sex until married. However, it also teaches that if we do, we may repent, be forgiven, and restored to God.
Written by: Lowan
And if the bible is to be taken literally, shouldn't we treat women as second class citizen and make homosexuality illegal?
No to the first, since the Bible doesn’t teach that. Yes to the second
Written by: Lowan
If it is OK to pick and choose which you want to follow then doesn't that suggest you dispute with the idea that the literature you are reading is indeed the word of God? And if you dispute one word, then what makes the rest of the book anymore true?
I agree.
Written by: The Tea Fairy
The messages, or 'rules' of religions have already been changing for thousands of years... think how many translations and revised editions of the Bible there were between the dead sea scrolls and the King James edition (hundreds!)
The significance of the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was that they were in agreement with the Masoretic text. There is no evidence that the rules and regulations have been changed over the years... that’s just wishful thinking. Neither were there hundreds of translations between the Bible and the KJV.
The “Old Testament” is easily the most accurately preserved ancient text of it’s kind in existence. A review of the extreme measures the Hebrews went through to ensure accurate copies shows why. They were imminently concerned with “Information Hygiene” and went to unreasonable lengths to ensure that the text we have today is an accurate copy.
There are some passages, mainly in the New Testament, which can be disputed as they do not appear in some manuscripts. Occasionally, different old copies will have different wordings. This is to be expected, as translators will not always agree on the best words to use. This has never been troubling to scholars, as the differences are not significant. A good edition will have footnotes pointing out words and phrases that are rendered differently in different manuscripts.
In all, there is only one disputed passage in the entire Bible which would make a noticeable theological point. However, it is redundant as the point it makes appears in several other places.
Not that this is essential, of course. The Bible is of great help to a believer, but even the illiterate can worship God.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I'm not going to get into it but if you really look at some of the 'less popular' parts of the bible the treatment of women is pretty vicious.
If a married woman is raped in a city and she doesn't get helped then the victim and the rapist are both to be killed.
If you rape an unwed woman you just gotta pay off the father...
There are more... but every time I site them the religous folks always say "Oh, that's not the part of the bible that we believe anymore" or something equally confusing to me.
Pick and Mix
And the classic pick and mix is my favorite bible passage ever.
Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James Version)
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So if you get testicular cancer and have to have surgery, you can't get into heaven.
The bible also clearly says "the sun moved across the sky" which got Galileo in so much trouble. The church interpreted that literally.
It seems that the church can change it's mind what it can and can't intepret literally. Like planetary orbits, rape, and gay marriage.
(Not literal, Not literal, Literal)
Or pick, pick, and mix.
Stupid me getting caught up in this same arguement for like the billionth time.
Written by: Patriarch917Written by: Lowan
And if the bible is to be taken literally, shouldn't we treat women as second class citizen and make homosexuality illegal?
No to the first, since the Bible doesn’t teach that. Yes to the second
I'm not going to get into it but if you really look at some of the 'less popular' parts of the bible the treatment of women is pretty vicious.
If a married woman is raped in a city and she doesn't get helped then the victim and the rapist are both to be killed.
If you rape an unwed woman you just gotta pay off the father...
There are more... but every time I site them the religous folks always say "Oh, that's not the part of the bible that we believe anymore" or something equally confusing to me.
Pick and Mix
And the classic pick and mix is my favorite bible passage ever.
Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James Version)
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So if you get testicular cancer and have to have surgery, you can't get into heaven.
The bible also clearly says "the sun moved across the sky" which got Galileo in so much trouble. The church interpreted that literally.
It seems that the church can change it's mind what it can and can't intepret literally. Like planetary orbits, rape, and gay marriage.
(Not literal, Not literal, Literal)
Or pick, pick, and mix.
Stupid me getting caught up in this same arguement for like the billionth time.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
PLATINUM Member
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
Posted:
i see the religious society as hypocritical (not all of it, but a lot of it).
i have 2 religious friends who think this about the religious society, so i believe them since they obviously know better than me.
both christianity and jewism are hypocritical, since there are a lot of religious jews (even rabbis) that commit rape/sexual harrassment, and follow the rules they want.
and it's the same with christianity. ive heard a lot of times about children being raped by catholic priests. also what NYC said at the end of his post.
if you look at some countries where religion and state are mixed (mainly muslim countries), the result is always bad. most islam countries oppress women, they're forced to cover their faces, and if they had sex before marriage they cant get married. they actually check it after they get married, if there's blood on the sheets after they had sex.
and another thing about religion i hate is that it actually limits freedom of expression. (like what happened with the da vinci code movie. they wanted it banned)
i think that a lot of the rules in religion dont fit in with modern life. for example in jewism you're not supposed to work on saturday, so you cant light fire. back when god said this rule, lighting fire was hard work. today, lighting fire is simple, just click the button on your lighter. also rabis are making it even harder by deciding that we cant use electricity since the spark created when you flip the switch for the light is a form of fire.
my parents are forcing me to follow that rule... which really hurts me because i cant go to the drums beach fire meets on friday nights...
ok ill shut up now... i can go on all day about what i hate about religion.
i see the religious society as hypocritical (not all of it, but a lot of it).
i have 2 religious friends who think this about the religious society, so i believe them since they obviously know better than me.
both christianity and jewism are hypocritical, since there are a lot of religious jews (even rabbis) that commit rape/sexual harrassment, and follow the rules they want.
and it's the same with christianity. ive heard a lot of times about children being raped by catholic priests. also what NYC said at the end of his post.
if you look at some countries where religion and state are mixed (mainly muslim countries), the result is always bad. most islam countries oppress women, they're forced to cover their faces, and if they had sex before marriage they cant get married. they actually check it after they get married, if there's blood on the sheets after they had sex.
and another thing about religion i hate is that it actually limits freedom of expression. (like what happened with the da vinci code movie. they wanted it banned)
i think that a lot of the rules in religion dont fit in with modern life. for example in jewism you're not supposed to work on saturday, so you cant light fire. back when god said this rule, lighting fire was hard work. today, lighting fire is simple, just click the button on your lighter. also rabis are making it even harder by deciding that we cant use electricity since the spark created when you flip the switch for the light is a form of fire.
my parents are forcing me to follow that rule... which really hurts me because i cant go to the drums beach fire meets on friday nights...
ok ill shut up now... i can go on all day about what i hate about religion.
Future Mrs Pogo
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
Posted:
All of this is exactly why I'm Pagan!
No sin!
Common sense morality!
No judging anyone for how they feel or who they are!
When someone tells me that I'm going to burn in hell because I don't worship their 'God,' I simply tell them...
It's your hell...you burn in it!
All of this is exactly why I'm Pagan!
No sin!
Common sense morality!
No judging anyone for how they feel or who they are!
When someone tells me that I'm going to burn in hell because I don't worship their 'God,' I simply tell them...
It's your hell...you burn in it!
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
You misrepresent the passage. If she could have cried out and gotten help, but didn’t, then this is considered evidence that she was not raped. However, if she was in a situation where she couldn’t cry out for help, it is assumed that she would not have consented, and it must have been rape. There is already a thread on this issue, but the point is that women are always assumed innocent by the law if possible, while the men are not. Thus, if anything, it is the men who are treated as second class citizens.
I’m sorry they do that. I won’t.
You do great violence to the passage by your incorrect interpretation. Read this in the light of Leviticus 21:17-23, and the meaning will be made clear. The “congregation of the Lord” is referring to congregating in the temple. The temple was supposed to be a place that was set apart, and only perfect (i.e., complete) things were brought there. Just as they would not sacrifice a lamb that was blind, lame, castrated, or had sores on it, so also people with these things would not come into the temple.
Of course, this does not imply exclusion from God. As Leviticus explains: While a sick or injured priest could not offer the holy bread, he could still eat it once it was offered.
You suggest that this passage means that people without testicles cannot go to heaven. A few scriptures will suffice to show that this interpretation is completely wrong. Consider, first, this prophecy in Isaiah 56:
The temple in the Old Testament served as a symbol to the people of the holiness of God, therefore only people in good health were allowed to go in there. However, here we have a prophecy about those who were formerly excluded, where God declares that the outcasts will be gathered and made acceptable to Him, such that they will be fit to serve in His house.
A fulfillment of this prophecy can be found in Acts 8. In that chapter, a Eunuch who is reading Isaiah is met by one of the messiah’s disciples. Does the disciple tell him that he is excluded, and cannot go to heaven?
I hope this suffices to show that, yes, people without testicles may be saved.
This is one of the dumbest, yet most common misconceptions. For some reason, people think that the bible teaches a geocentric universe, when it does not.
Galileo’s beef was with the Roman Catholic Church’s adherence to an Aristotelian universe. Geocentrism was not taught by the Bible, but by Greek philosophy. Galileo showed that a Copernican universe was consistent with what the Bible taught. He got in trouble not because his teachings contradicted anything the Bible taught, but because he contradicted what Aristotle taught... and what the Catholic Church erroneously believed.
You say that the Bible clearly says “the sun moved across the sky” as if this were a quote from the Bible. It is not, at least in the several translations I searched.
The Bible does speak of the sun rising, setting, going up, and going down. The local weatherman does the same. When he tells me the sun will go down at such-and-such a time, I interpret him to mean that it will go down in relation to the horizon.
But let us pretend for a moment that your quote actually appears in the Bible, and that it is meant to be understood in a “hyper literal” sense. Would it be incorrect to say that the sun moves, not only from the perspective of our horizon, but from other perspectives?
No. Even this would be correct. Remember, geocentrism is incorrect, but so is heliocentrism. The sun moves through the sky not only in relation to the earth’s horizon, but also in relation to other heavenly bodies. It would be incorrect to say that the sun does not move across the sky.
Thus, that misquote of the Bible does not show it to be wrong, even when taken in the most hyper-literal sense.
However, we need not go to such lengths. As the universe has no identifiable fixed frame of reference, all motion must be described relative to some other thing. Thus, it is conceptually correct to hold any part of the universe as being stationary, and describe everything else as moving in relationship to it. A scientist may speak of the sun rising and setting, without warranting an accusation of geocentrism. So may the Bible.
Written by: NYCWritten by: Patriarch917Written by: Lowan
And if the bible is to be taken literally, shouldn't we treat women as second class citizen and make homosexuality illegal?
No to the first, since the Bible doesn’t teach that. Yes to the second
I'm not going to get into it but if you really look at some of the 'less popular' parts of the bible the treatment of women is pretty vicious.
If a married woman is raped in a city and she doesn't get helped then the victim and the rapist are both to be killed.
You misrepresent the passage. If she could have cried out and gotten help, but didn’t, then this is considered evidence that she was not raped. However, if she was in a situation where she couldn’t cry out for help, it is assumed that she would not have consented, and it must have been rape. There is already a thread on this issue, but the point is that women are always assumed innocent by the law if possible, while the men are not. Thus, if anything, it is the men who are treated as second class citizens.
Written by: NYC
There are more... but every time I site them the religous folks always say "Oh, that's not the part of the bible that we believe anymore" or something equally confusing to me.
I’m sorry they do that. I won’t.
Written by: NYC
And the classic pick and mix is my favorite bible passage ever.
Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James Version)
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So if you get testicular cancer and have to have surgery, you can't get into heaven.
You do great violence to the passage by your incorrect interpretation. Read this in the light of Leviticus 21:17-23, and the meaning will be made clear. The “congregation of the Lord” is referring to congregating in the temple. The temple was supposed to be a place that was set apart, and only perfect (i.e., complete) things were brought there. Just as they would not sacrifice a lamb that was blind, lame, castrated, or had sores on it, so also people with these things would not come into the temple.
Of course, this does not imply exclusion from God. As Leviticus explains: While a sick or injured priest could not offer the holy bread, he could still eat it once it was offered.
You suggest that this passage means that people without testicles cannot go to heaven. A few scriptures will suffice to show that this interpretation is completely wrong. Consider, first, this prophecy in Isaiah 56:
Written by:
And do not let the son of the stranger, who has joined himself to Jehovah, speak, saying, Jehovah has utterly separated me from His people. And do not let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
For so says Jehovah to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant; even to them will I give within My house and within My walls a hand and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
Also the sons of the stranger, who join themselves to Jehovah to serve Him, and to love the name of Jehovah, to be His servants, everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and takes hold of My covenant; even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples, says the Lord Jehovah who gathers the outcasts of Israel...
The temple in the Old Testament served as a symbol to the people of the holiness of God, therefore only people in good health were allowed to go in there. However, here we have a prophecy about those who were formerly excluded, where God declares that the outcasts will be gathered and made acceptable to Him, such that they will be fit to serve in His house.
A fulfillment of this prophecy can be found in Acts 8. In that chapter, a Eunuch who is reading Isaiah is met by one of the messiah’s disciples. Does the disciple tell him that he is excluded, and cannot go to heaven?
Written by:
And the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south, on the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is a deserted place. And he arose and went.
And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasure and had come to Jerusalem to worship,
was returning. And sitting in his chariot he read Isaiah the prophet.
Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near and join yourself to this chariot. And Philip ran there to him and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you indeed understand what you are reading?”
And he said, How can I unless some man should guide me? And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. And the content of the Scripture which he read was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away, and who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth."
And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I beg you, of whom does the prophet speak this? Of himself or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached the gospel of Yeshua to him. And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?
Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Yeshua the Messiah is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
I hope this suffices to show that, yes, people without testicles may be saved.
Written by:
The bible also clearly says "the sun moved across the sky" which got Galileo in so much trouble. The church interpreted that literally.
This is one of the dumbest, yet most common misconceptions. For some reason, people think that the bible teaches a geocentric universe, when it does not.
Galileo’s beef was with the Roman Catholic Church’s adherence to an Aristotelian universe. Geocentrism was not taught by the Bible, but by Greek philosophy. Galileo showed that a Copernican universe was consistent with what the Bible taught. He got in trouble not because his teachings contradicted anything the Bible taught, but because he contradicted what Aristotle taught... and what the Catholic Church erroneously believed.
You say that the Bible clearly says “the sun moved across the sky” as if this were a quote from the Bible. It is not, at least in the several translations I searched.
The Bible does speak of the sun rising, setting, going up, and going down. The local weatherman does the same. When he tells me the sun will go down at such-and-such a time, I interpret him to mean that it will go down in relation to the horizon.
But let us pretend for a moment that your quote actually appears in the Bible, and that it is meant to be understood in a “hyper literal” sense. Would it be incorrect to say that the sun moves, not only from the perspective of our horizon, but from other perspectives?
No. Even this would be correct. Remember, geocentrism is incorrect, but so is heliocentrism. The sun moves through the sky not only in relation to the earth’s horizon, but also in relation to other heavenly bodies. It would be incorrect to say that the sun does not move across the sky.
Thus, that misquote of the Bible does not show it to be wrong, even when taken in the most hyper-literal sense.
However, we need not go to such lengths. As the universe has no identifiable fixed frame of reference, all motion must be described relative to some other thing. Thus, it is conceptually correct to hold any part of the universe as being stationary, and describe everything else as moving in relationship to it. A scientist may speak of the sun rising and setting, without warranting an accusation of geocentrism. So may the Bible.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
So if you injur your testicles you're not allowed into church. That sounds a bit silly but OK. And also...
"A [censored] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
So that means that if your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents weren't married, you're not welcome into church? Are you certain that you are not in that category? I don't even know my great, great, great, great grandparent's names...
Sounds like a pretty typical stretch... OK, stretch on this one:
v. 28) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, (v. 29) he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Sounds like a sweet deal for rapists!
Again, I'm getting sucked into ticky tacking... but I've read the bible and I found the treatment of women absolutely appauling.
So if you injur your testicles you're not allowed into church. That sounds a bit silly but OK. And also...
"A [censored] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
So that means that if your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents weren't married, you're not welcome into church? Are you certain that you are not in that category? I don't even know my great, great, great, great grandparent's names...
Sounds like a pretty typical stretch... OK, stretch on this one:
v. 28) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, (v. 29) he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Sounds like a sweet deal for rapists!
Again, I'm getting sucked into ticky tacking... but I've read the bible and I found the treatment of women absolutely appauling.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
If you want to look up some Galileo history (which I did many years ago) you can find the exact quotes that were used by the Catholic church. It was literally something like "... the sun moved across the sky as [some dude] walked across the desert..." or something.
I ain't looking it up again.
And you seem to be blowing off the whole Galileo thing because you didn't see anything in the bible that would support it having happened. If you want to (not a challenge but more of an "if you're curious") you can look up the exact bible quotes that were twisted to prosecute Galileo.
I know that Galileo was a complete jerk about how he went about some of his stuff so I understand WHY the church came after him. But they did come after him, and they were waving the bible as evidence.
Written by: Patriarch917
This is one of the dumbest, yet most common misconceptions. For some reason, people think that the bible teaches a geocentric universe, when it does not.
You say that the Bible clearly says “the sun moved across the sky” as if this were a quote from the Bible. It is not, at least in the several translations I searched.
If you want to look up some Galileo history (which I did many years ago) you can find the exact quotes that were used by the Catholic church. It was literally something like "... the sun moved across the sky as [some dude] walked across the desert..." or something.
I ain't looking it up again.
And you seem to be blowing off the whole Galileo thing because you didn't see anything in the bible that would support it having happened. If you want to (not a challenge but more of an "if you're curious") you can look up the exact bible quotes that were twisted to prosecute Galileo.
I know that Galileo was a complete jerk about how he went about some of his stuff so I understand WHY the church came after him. But they did come after him, and they were waving the bible as evidence.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
That’s incorrect as well. Neither the building which is usually called a “Church” nor the “Church” in the sense of “believers” excludes Eunuchs. As the passage in Acts illustrates, the eunuch was allowed to become a part of the Church. As the passage in Isaiah illustrates, they are no longer even excluded from the temple.
The word that got censored referred to the child of an Israelite who married a pagan (which is forbidden elsewhere). Not, as you probably thought, to the child of Israelites who merely had sex before they were married.
Again, you have incorrectly inserted the word “church.” Read 1 Cor. 7, and you will find that the children of believers are considered part of the church, even if one parent is an unbeliever.
First. You should note that the NIV is virtually the only version which translates this as a “rape.” There is compelling evidence to translate this as a seduction, whereby a man deceives a woman into having sex. The reasons for favoring this translation include:
1. The wording used in this verse is different from the wording used a few verse earlier, which actually do describe a rape. Why change the wording, if not to indicate a different meaning?
2. Nowhere else in the bible whether they talk about rape do they use this wording to refer to it. Rather, the wording of the actual rape described a few verses earlier is used.
3. The penalty seems unusually lax. While our modern sensibilities chafe at the idea of the death penalty, God seems willing to dole it out in spades. The previous few verse demonstrate that God gave laws that treated women better than men, and that He has no problem handing out a little capital punishment. Why would God merely give this offense a fine, and the possibility of compelled marriage?
Admittedly, the fine would be somewhere around $30,000 - $100,000 if adjusted to today’s dollars. A fine that could not be paid would mean that the guy would be sold into slavery until he could work off that amount... and this would be the result in most cases. A rich man, perhaps, might be able to have the cash on hand. However, a much worse fate is in store for him.
The man may be forced to marry the woman, if her father wishes (more on this in a moment). Furthermore, the man can never divorce the wife, no matter what she does. He will continue to be responsible to provide for her upkeep (the law requires it in another place), and may never divorce her.
She, on the other hand, is now free to do as she wants. It is not unreasonable to think that some women would decide to marry the man, especially if he were wealthy, then go about spending his money as she pleases. There is no requirement, of course, that they live together. Without the possibility of divorce, she has no incentive to do so... but rather every incentive to lord over him for the rest of his life. He would, in a sense, become her permanent source of income, while she would owe no duty to him.
As you can see, while short of death, this would not be a sweet deal for the fellow, even if this were rape. However, the penalty side of it brings us to the most significant reason to think that this isn’t describing rape.
4. Comparison between Deuteronomy 22, and Exodus 22.
In Exodus 22 we read:
“And if a man lures a virgin who is not promised, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”
Here, we have what seems possibly to be the same law in a different book of the Bible. Again, a man who has sex before marriage must pay the money and marry her (“endow” refers to the dowry price).
Of course, there are differences. The one in Deuteronomy mentions a specific amount that should be paid, while the one in Exodus just says “according to the dowry of virgins” as if the reader would already know how much that was.
Second, the one in Exodus mentions that the father can refuse to allow the marriage. I used to think that it was odd that the other passage didn’t have this. However, it was pointed out to me that, for the next two thousand years or so after this was written, the right of a father to approve or disapprove of the marriage of his daughter was considered so obvious as to hardly need mentioning.
Thus, if these passages really are describing the same principle, it would seem that reading them both would help a reader fill in details which the other merely implies.
I lean toward thinking that this passage is meant to be understood as describing consensual sex. It would certainly make sense in context. The verses prior to it had just said that one who is betrothed is considered to be married, and that to have sex with someone else while engaged is considered adultery. Thus, this passage was added to explain that consensual sex, when you are neither married nor betrothed, is not adultery.
This, seems to be the best reading of the text, and is the one that virtually every commentator I’ve read seems to think is the correct understanding. The NIV translates it as rape, but it is the only one that gives it this meaning, and has been criticized for it.
In the Hebrew, the word used is different from the word used a few verses earlier to describe rape. It can be used to mean “take prisoner,” and thus the translation of the NIV is explained. However, it can be translated as merely the physical touching needed to have sex, or to refer to manipulation (the word is used elsewhere to describe “playing” a harp).
It is significant that in the Bible’s most famous seduction attempt (of Joseph, by the wife of his Egyptian master), the word is used to describe her “grabbing” his jacket while asking him to make sweet, long, passionate love to him.
In summary, then:
1. The original text can be interpreted as referring to seduction.
2. There is a corresponding passage in Exodus that clearly refers to seduction
3. The word is used in a story which clearly describes seduction.
4. That meaning would make perfect sense, in context, as it would clarify the difference between seducing someone who is betrothed, and someone that is not.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to think that this passage may be talking about seduction, not rape.
You would be surprised how much research I am willing to do before replying to a post. I did quite a bit of reading on “Galileo history” before replying. I also read every passage in the Bible that had the word “sun” in it. I can’t find your quote.
I did look up the passages that were twisted to try to support Aristotle, and I agree with Galileo that the Catholic church was wrong to twist them that way. As he pointed out, the fault was not with the Bible, but with the way the Church had tried to twist the Bible to fit an Aristotelian worldview.
I don’t make a habit out of defending the Roman Catholics, as I disagree with them on pretty much everything important. However, even the Pope admitted to Galileo that the Bible could be interpreted to support the idea that the Earth goes around the sun.
You are correct, except to think that the church was waving the Bible as evidence. Recall, they did not come after him for advocating Copernican views. Many Jesuits at the time were Copernican. Rather, they went after him for disobeying a command of the Pope. The whole affair was quite clumsy, in fact.
Recall that the Catholic Church holds the teaching of the church above the text of the Bible. They went after Galileo for disagreeing with the church, not with the Bible. The Bible itself does not teach geocentrism. That misconception was reached without consulting the Bible, and the Bible does not support it.
Written by: NYC
So if you injur your testicles you're not allowed into church. That sounds a bit silly but OK. And also...
That’s incorrect as well. Neither the building which is usually called a “Church” nor the “Church” in the sense of “believers” excludes Eunuchs. As the passage in Acts illustrates, the eunuch was allowed to become a part of the Church. As the passage in Isaiah illustrates, they are no longer even excluded from the temple.
Written by: NYC
"Ashall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
So that means that if your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents weren't married, you're not welcome into church? Are you certain that you are not in that category? I don't even know my great, great, great, great grandparent's names...
The word that got censored referred to the child of an Israelite who married a pagan (which is forbidden elsewhere). Not, as you probably thought, to the child of Israelites who merely had sex before they were married.
Again, you have incorrectly inserted the word “church.” Read 1 Cor. 7, and you will find that the children of believers are considered part of the church, even if one parent is an unbeliever.
Written by: NYC
v. 28) If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, (v. 29) he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Sounds like a sweet deal for rapists!
First. You should note that the NIV is virtually the only version which translates this as a “rape.” There is compelling evidence to translate this as a seduction, whereby a man deceives a woman into having sex. The reasons for favoring this translation include:
1. The wording used in this verse is different from the wording used a few verse earlier, which actually do describe a rape. Why change the wording, if not to indicate a different meaning?
2. Nowhere else in the bible whether they talk about rape do they use this wording to refer to it. Rather, the wording of the actual rape described a few verses earlier is used.
3. The penalty seems unusually lax. While our modern sensibilities chafe at the idea of the death penalty, God seems willing to dole it out in spades. The previous few verse demonstrate that God gave laws that treated women better than men, and that He has no problem handing out a little capital punishment. Why would God merely give this offense a fine, and the possibility of compelled marriage?
Admittedly, the fine would be somewhere around $30,000 - $100,000 if adjusted to today’s dollars. A fine that could not be paid would mean that the guy would be sold into slavery until he could work off that amount... and this would be the result in most cases. A rich man, perhaps, might be able to have the cash on hand. However, a much worse fate is in store for him.
The man may be forced to marry the woman, if her father wishes (more on this in a moment). Furthermore, the man can never divorce the wife, no matter what she does. He will continue to be responsible to provide for her upkeep (the law requires it in another place), and may never divorce her.
She, on the other hand, is now free to do as she wants. It is not unreasonable to think that some women would decide to marry the man, especially if he were wealthy, then go about spending his money as she pleases. There is no requirement, of course, that they live together. Without the possibility of divorce, she has no incentive to do so... but rather every incentive to lord over him for the rest of his life. He would, in a sense, become her permanent source of income, while she would owe no duty to him.
As you can see, while short of death, this would not be a sweet deal for the fellow, even if this were rape. However, the penalty side of it brings us to the most significant reason to think that this isn’t describing rape.
4. Comparison between Deuteronomy 22, and Exodus 22.
In Exodus 22 we read:
“And if a man lures a virgin who is not promised, and lies with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”
Here, we have what seems possibly to be the same law in a different book of the Bible. Again, a man who has sex before marriage must pay the money and marry her (“endow” refers to the dowry price).
Of course, there are differences. The one in Deuteronomy mentions a specific amount that should be paid, while the one in Exodus just says “according to the dowry of virgins” as if the reader would already know how much that was.
Second, the one in Exodus mentions that the father can refuse to allow the marriage. I used to think that it was odd that the other passage didn’t have this. However, it was pointed out to me that, for the next two thousand years or so after this was written, the right of a father to approve or disapprove of the marriage of his daughter was considered so obvious as to hardly need mentioning.
Thus, if these passages really are describing the same principle, it would seem that reading them both would help a reader fill in details which the other merely implies.
I lean toward thinking that this passage is meant to be understood as describing consensual sex. It would certainly make sense in context. The verses prior to it had just said that one who is betrothed is considered to be married, and that to have sex with someone else while engaged is considered adultery. Thus, this passage was added to explain that consensual sex, when you are neither married nor betrothed, is not adultery.
This, seems to be the best reading of the text, and is the one that virtually every commentator I’ve read seems to think is the correct understanding. The NIV translates it as rape, but it is the only one that gives it this meaning, and has been criticized for it.
In the Hebrew, the word used is different from the word used a few verses earlier to describe rape. It can be used to mean “take prisoner,” and thus the translation of the NIV is explained. However, it can be translated as merely the physical touching needed to have sex, or to refer to manipulation (the word is used elsewhere to describe “playing” a harp).
It is significant that in the Bible’s most famous seduction attempt (of Joseph, by the wife of his Egyptian master), the word is used to describe her “grabbing” his jacket while asking him to make sweet, long, passionate love to him.
In summary, then:
1. The original text can be interpreted as referring to seduction.
2. There is a corresponding passage in Exodus that clearly refers to seduction
3. The word is used in a story which clearly describes seduction.
4. That meaning would make perfect sense, in context, as it would clarify the difference between seducing someone who is betrothed, and someone that is not.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to think that this passage may be talking about seduction, not rape.
Written by: NYC
If you want to look up some Galileo history (which I did many years ago) you can find the exact quotes that were used by the Catholic church. It was literally something like "... the sun moved across the sky as [some dude] walked across the desert..." or something.
I ain't looking it up again.
And you seem to be blowing off the whole Galileo thing because you didn't see anything in the bible that would support it having happened. If you want to (not a challenge but more of an "if you're curious") you can look up the exact bible quotes that were twisted to prosecute Galileo.
You would be surprised how much research I am willing to do before replying to a post.
I did quite a bit of reading on “Galileo history” before replying. I also read every passage in the Bible that had the word “sun” in it. I can’t find your quote.I did look up the passages that were twisted to try to support Aristotle, and I agree with Galileo that the Catholic church was wrong to twist them that way. As he pointed out, the fault was not with the Bible, but with the way the Church had tried to twist the Bible to fit an Aristotelian worldview.
I don’t make a habit out of defending the Roman Catholics, as I disagree with them on pretty much everything important. However, even the Pope admitted to Galileo that the Bible could be interpreted to support the idea that the Earth goes around the sun.
Written by: NYC
I know that Galileo was a complete jerk about how he went about some of his stuff so I understand WHY the church came after him. But they did come after him, and they were waving the bible as evidence.
You are correct, except to think that the church was waving the Bible as evidence. Recall, they did not come after him for advocating Copernican views. Many Jesuits at the time were Copernican. Rather, they went after him for disobeying a command of the Pope. The whole affair was quite clumsy, in fact.
Recall that the Catholic Church holds the teaching of the church above the text of the Bible. They went after Galileo for disagreeing with the church, not with the Bible. The Bible itself does not teach geocentrism. That misconception was reached without consulting the Bible, and the Bible does not support it.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Seems to me that there is alot of cross-referencing going on, which then makes the bible a contradictory tale. No one can interpret that book incorrectly because I have seen more interpretations that bible versions. All of them with strong basis. All of them finding support in other verses. So, Patriarch, you can quote and cross reference all day til you are blue in the face, but it does not actually invalidate NYC as you seem to think it does. You are each presenting different ways of viewing it. And that is one of the main issues in religion today.
And, btw, I agree with NYC on the whole issue, especially when cross referenced with the entire no premarital sex thing.
And the old testament is *not* the most "well preserved" books in history, the heiroglyphs actually take that, as they are concidered to be written tales.
Not to mention that the bible wasn't written until years after the death of Jesus. Ever play the telephone game? Yeah...me too. It never interprets the same at the end as it started in the beginning. Neither does any story told over decades and written by one select group of people.
And yes, it is extremely jaded against women, no matter how you slice it. Ever read the story about the harlot by the side of the road? I have and it was appalling.
Truthfully, religion hasn't evolved. People have.
Tales such as the Bible, the Koran, Anansi, The Nordic tales, The Celtic, Roman, Greek pantheon dieties...they are all fables really, meant to create a moral social codes in the embodiment of the world around us so that we could understand them.
People took them literally.
Some still do.
(My personal favorite statement from a religious person I had the displeasure of knowing was that the Bible was actually written in English first, AND that the Spanish speaking world who refer to Him as Dio were going to burn for not revering God, despite that Dio means God.)
However, as these societies expanded they clashed and the question of whose moralities were right emerged. Some people didn't like all of one morality, so they editted and created their own.
And now...it's more like an easy out.
People pick and choose not necessarily because they were ever die hard believers but because the moralities do not necessarily apply to modern life (for example, I really don't think it is the duty of the wife to wash the feet of the elephant before the feet of her lover) but they still fear the unknown, and the great unknown is what is beyond death. When you can hold onto some shred and say "I'm faithful." it is a comfort, false though it may be.
And even the Pope has changed what is acceptable within the Catholic religion socially several times throughout history. If this man is supposed to be the human interpreter for the voice of God, what does the fact that they are evolving the belief structure based on literaly (not biblically perceived) social standards say about it?
Though when it comes to Christianity I just *love* when the subsequent christian religions (more modern ones) tell the Catholic church they are wrong, especially based on the KJV. Oh yes, that makes me giggle fiercely every time I watch them debate.
I also have to say Fyrespirit, there are big "no-no's" in Paganism as well. Rape and pedifilism are amongst them. They are most definately "sins". Laws of personal gain and balance, "karma", do as thou wilt *as it harms none*...those are definite stops on the social sin wagon.
We just have a broader sense of definition..depending on the pantheon you follow. If you are Druidic, it is most definately outlined. So it is with Dianic, Alexandrian and Gardinerian as well. Native and Nordic structure of beliefs also have clear cut laws on right, wrong and morality.
Paganism has been extremely among those of the "pick-n-mix" religious paths as well. Like the septs of Christianity, people have truly read modern based books on someones opinion of what the path should be and chosen to interpret them as they will and adapt it. Then they will flit about saying they are Druid, or Wiccan or (insert here) without truly knowing what it is to go through the YEARS of training to ascend to the levels it takes to truly become that. My grandmother is Witta. She has taught me and I am not close to becoming her, yet I have encountered people who have read two books and claimed they know more.
Paganism is not at all infallible in this same topic.
No, religion in this day and age is like packet oatmeal when nothing else is in the cupboard...add water and you are saved!
EDITED_BY: Pele (1159020640)
Seems to me that there is alot of cross-referencing going on, which then makes the bible a contradictory tale. No one can interpret that book incorrectly because I have seen more interpretations that bible versions. All of them with strong basis. All of them finding support in other verses. So, Patriarch, you can quote and cross reference all day til you are blue in the face, but it does not actually invalidate NYC as you seem to think it does. You are each presenting different ways of viewing it. And that is one of the main issues in religion today.
And, btw, I agree with NYC on the whole
issue, especially when cross referenced with the entire no premarital sex thing.And the old testament is *not* the most "well preserved" books in history, the heiroglyphs actually take that, as they are concidered to be written tales.
Not to mention that the bible wasn't written until years after the death of Jesus. Ever play the telephone game? Yeah...me too. It never interprets the same at the end as it started in the beginning. Neither does any story told over decades and written by one select group of people.
And yes, it is extremely jaded against women, no matter how you slice it. Ever read the story about the harlot by the side of the road? I have and it was appalling.
Truthfully, religion hasn't evolved. People have.
Tales such as the Bible, the Koran, Anansi, The Nordic tales, The Celtic, Roman, Greek pantheon dieties...they are all fables really, meant to create a moral social codes in the embodiment of the world around us so that we could understand them.
People took them literally.
Some still do.
(My personal favorite statement from a religious person I had the displeasure of knowing was that the Bible was actually written in English first, AND that the Spanish speaking world who refer to Him as Dio were going to burn for not revering God, despite that Dio means God.)
However, as these societies expanded they clashed and the question of whose moralities were right emerged. Some people didn't like all of one morality, so they editted and created their own.
And now...it's more like an easy out.
People pick and choose not necessarily because they were ever die hard believers but because the moralities do not necessarily apply to modern life (for example, I really don't think it is the duty of the wife to wash the feet of the elephant before the feet of her lover) but they still fear the unknown, and the great unknown is what is beyond death. When you can hold onto some shred and say "I'm faithful." it is a comfort, false though it may be.
And even the Pope has changed what is acceptable within the Catholic religion socially several times throughout history. If this man is supposed to be the human interpreter for the voice of God, what does the fact that they are evolving the belief structure based on literaly (not biblically perceived) social standards say about it?
Though when it comes to Christianity I just *love* when the subsequent christian religions (more modern ones) tell the Catholic church they are wrong, especially based on the KJV. Oh yes, that makes me giggle fiercely every time I watch them debate.
I also have to say Fyrespirit, there are big "no-no's" in Paganism as well. Rape and pedifilism are amongst them. They are most definately "sins". Laws of personal gain and balance, "karma", do as thou wilt *as it harms none*...those are definite stops on the social sin wagon.
We just have a broader sense of definition..depending on the pantheon you follow. If you are Druidic, it is most definately outlined. So it is with Dianic, Alexandrian and Gardinerian as well. Native and Nordic structure of beliefs also have clear cut laws on right, wrong and morality.
Paganism has been extremely among those of the "pick-n-mix" religious paths as well. Like the septs of Christianity, people have truly read modern based books on someones opinion of what the path should be and chosen to interpret them as they will and adapt it. Then they will flit about saying they are Druid, or Wiccan or (insert here) without truly knowing what it is to go through the YEARS of training to ascend to the levels it takes to truly become that. My grandmother is Witta. She has taught me and I am not close to becoming her, yet I have encountered people who have read two books and claimed they know more.
Paganism is not at all infallible in this same topic.
No, religion in this day and age is like packet oatmeal when nothing else is in the cupboard...add water and you are saved!
EDITED_BY: Pele (1159020640)
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Future Mrs Pogo
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
Posted:
Very well said!
I was too general in my statements, in fact I apologize.
I definitely don't think that I know the nature of the universe any better than anyone else.
There are many no-no's in Paganism, as you say, but these are what I would consider to be a rational persons common sense values. Unfortunately, there are alot of people in the world who are far from rational and so, we have the state that the world is in.
A very sad state.
Very well said!
I was too general in my statements, in fact I apologize.
I definitely don't think that I know the nature of the universe any better than anyone else.
There are many no-no's in Paganism, as you say, but these are what I would consider to be a rational persons common sense values. Unfortunately, there are alot of people in the world who are far from rational and so, we have the state that the world is in.
A very sad state.
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
member
90 posts
90 posts
Posted:
I like this Patriarch guy, but I can't cut him any slack over the quotes which are being debated here. I checked my copy of the bible and it seems that Moses does indeed have a downer on raped virgins, men who have had their genitals injured or removed, and those who are considered illegitimate children. All quotes being short, declarative sentences, no room for metaphor or allegory. The option of non-literal interpretation would rest on shaky ground as at least one of the quotes is from the same speech as the ten commandments. Having said that, Patriarch is obviously not a blind-faith zealot, and I would welcome his response.
I like this Patriarch guy, but I can't cut him any slack over the quotes which are being debated here. I checked my copy of the bible and it seems that Moses does indeed have a downer on raped virgins, men who have had their genitals injured or removed, and those who are considered illegitimate children. All quotes being short, declarative sentences, no room for metaphor or allegory. The option of non-literal interpretation would rest on shaky ground as at least one of the quotes is from the same speech as the ten commandments. Having said that, Patriarch is obviously not a blind-faith zealot, and I would welcome his response.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
This is the kind of stuff that I always am greeted with. "No No, you gotta focus BEYOND the page... let your eyes go blurry and then you can see what it's actually saying..."
Iansmith has a great point. The sentences are pretty clear.
And I refuse to believe that ANY organization that does not let women into the same manegerial positions as they do men is not sexist.
And I'm really trying to duck out of this discussion since a simple internet search of Galileo turned up these three quotes as ones of many that the catholic church used as evidence against him. Maybe they're not in your bible or on your internet.
“O Lord God, you are very great!
You have stretched out the heavens like a tent ......
You have set the earth on its foundations so that it could never be shaken ......
You have made the moon to mark the seasons.
The sun knows its time for setting .”
Psalm 103
“The sun rises
and the sun goes down
and hastens to the place where it rises. ”
Kohelet 1,5
“The sun stood still in the midst of heaven and did not hasten to go down for a full day.”
Sun miracle, Joshua 10,13
And this quote is interesting:
You can read Cardinal Bellarmine's blunders here.
I can agree to disagree with everything except the fact about the church using the bible as evidence against Galileo. The above clearly shows the church using the bible as evidence.
Can we at least agree on that?
Written by: Patriarch917
The NIV translates it as rape, but it is the only one that gives it this meaning, and has been criticized for it.
This is the kind of stuff that I always am greeted with. "No No, you gotta focus BEYOND the page... let your eyes go blurry and then you can see what it's actually saying..."
Iansmith has a great point. The sentences are pretty clear.
And I refuse to believe that ANY organization that does not let women into the same manegerial positions as they do men is not sexist.
And I'm really trying to duck out of this discussion since a simple internet search of Galileo turned up these three quotes as ones of many that the catholic church used as evidence against him. Maybe they're not in your bible or on your internet.
“O Lord God, you are very great!
You have stretched out the heavens like a tent ......
You have set the earth on its foundations so that it could never be shaken ......
You have made the moon to mark the seasons.
The sun knows its time for setting .”
Psalm 103
“The sun rises
and the sun goes down
and hastens to the place where it rises. ”
Kohelet 1,5
“The sun stood still in the midst of heaven and did not hasten to go down for a full day.”
Sun miracle, Joshua 10,13
And this quote is interesting:
Written by:
“The Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of Scripture in a way contrary to the common agreement of the Holy Fathers. Now, if you will read modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes [=Kohelet] and Joshua, as well as the Fathers, you will find that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the sun is in he heavens and revolves round the earth with immense speed . . . . ”
Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to Fr. Foscarini OCD, 12 April 1615
You can read Cardinal Bellarmine's blunders here.
I can agree to disagree with everything except the fact about the church using the bible as evidence against Galileo. The above clearly shows the church using the bible as evidence.
Can we at least agree on that?
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
With that said, Galileo DIDN'T think the bible was suggesting that the sun moved across the sky but accused the Church of misinterpreting the bible to prosecute him.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
With that said, Galileo DIDN'T think the bible was suggesting that the sun moved across the sky but accused the Church of misinterpreting the bible to prosecute him.
Written by:
To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes. . . . The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable. With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error.
-Galileo
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I think in the everyday life of everyday people of most religions, common sense is equally important. The pagans I've met on average don't seem to display any more or less common sense, and morality, than the Christians, agnostics or atheists I've met.
And they seem to be just as judgmental of people they don't like as everyone else is Can't remember how often I've heard "fxck Christians" or the bible being made fun of, which doesn't strike me as the most tolerant or unjudgmental of attitudes...
No judging is a nice attitude to have though if you have it Just remember that tolerance doesn't mean tolerating "alternative lifestyles" and religions that you agree with, but the ones that you don't agree with
@ Patriarch: I don't agree with your idea of the virgin's good deal.
Say she marries the guy that "seduces" her. If, indeed he is rich, he will very probably not let her handle his money. I doubt that the early Israelites lived like us, where a millionaire seduces a pretty blonde and she spends the next 20 years getting breast enlargements on his credit card. What would she spend it on? Clothes and jewellery, I can't think of many more luxury articles. Isn't it much more likely though that a rich man who could easily afford 50 silver shekalim would NOT let one of the wives control the money?
Second, even if they get married, if he's rich, providing for her is NO effort at all, and he doesn't even have to give her much attention, because he can have more than 1 wife to resort to, whereas she can easily be stuck there with nowhere to turn to.
If he's NOT rich, he will just have spent most of his fortune, or very likely be indebted to her father or whoever gave him money, for paying the dowry. In that case she won't have the easy life, and may probably never hear the end of it from him.
Now if she doesn't want to marry, what's the alternative for her? EVERYONE will know what has happened, and she will quite likely not get a good deal on marriage. Even with the additional dowry added to the deal, usually the kind of people that would go for a girl because of her money, instead of valuing the morals, would probably not make the best family to marry into.
I'd be interested to hear from people of religions I don't know much about where pick'n'mix comes in with their belief - without attaching any "good" or "bad" tags to it, I just don't know enough on, say, Hinduism to know which bits of it would be difficult to combine with "modern life". I guess we all agree that MOST Christians that don't live in their own communities have made amends in some respects.
I think that in the end, it is up to every single one of us to be at peace with themselves and find a balance between "convenience", "common sense" and religion, and as long it doesn't cause damage to others we should leave the choice to everyone and their own conscience. I can't believe the trouble some people (NOT referring to this discussion) go to just to point out a fault in the beliefs or actions (unless hurtful to others!) of a person whose religion they don't agree with.
Written by: fyrespirit
All of this is exactly why I'm Pagan!
No sin!
Common sense morality!
No judging anyone for how they feel or who they are!
I think in the everyday life of everyday people of most religions, common sense is equally important. The pagans I've met on average don't seem to display any more or less common sense, and morality, than the Christians, agnostics or atheists I've met.
And they seem to be just as judgmental of people they don't like as everyone else is
Can't remember how often I've heard "fxck Christians" or the bible being made fun of, which doesn't strike me as the most tolerant or unjudgmental of attitudes... No judging is a nice attitude to have though if you have it
Just remember that tolerance doesn't mean tolerating "alternative lifestyles" and religions that you agree with, but the ones that you don't agree with @ Patriarch: I don't agree with your idea of the virgin's good deal.
Say she marries the guy that "seduces" her. If, indeed he is rich, he will very probably not let her handle his money. I doubt that the early Israelites lived like us, where a millionaire seduces a pretty blonde and she spends the next 20 years getting breast enlargements on his credit card. What would she spend it on? Clothes and jewellery, I can't think of many more luxury articles. Isn't it much more likely though that a rich man who could easily afford 50 silver shekalim would NOT let one of the wives control the money?
Second, even if they get married, if he's rich, providing for her is NO effort at all, and he doesn't even have to give her much attention, because he can have more than 1 wife to resort to, whereas she can easily be stuck there with nowhere to turn to.
If he's NOT rich, he will just have spent most of his fortune, or very likely be indebted to her father or whoever gave him money, for paying the dowry. In that case she won't have the easy life, and may probably never hear the end of it from him.
Now if she doesn't want to marry, what's the alternative for her? EVERYONE will know what has happened, and she will quite likely not get a good deal on marriage. Even with the additional dowry added to the deal, usually the kind of people that would go for a girl because of her money, instead of valuing the morals, would probably not make the best family to marry into.
I'd be interested to hear from people of religions I don't know much about where pick'n'mix comes in with their belief - without attaching any "good" or "bad" tags to it, I just don't know enough on, say, Hinduism to know which bits of it would be difficult to combine with "modern life". I guess we all agree that MOST Christians that don't live in their own communities have made amends in some respects.
I think that in the end, it is up to every single one of us to be at peace with themselves and find a balance between "convenience", "common sense" and religion, and as long it doesn't cause damage to others we should leave the choice to everyone and their own conscience. I can't believe the trouble some people (NOT referring to this discussion) go to just to point out a fault in the beliefs or actions (unless hurtful to others!) of a person whose religion they don't agree with.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Future Mrs Pogo
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
4,728 posts
Location: The wrong place
Posted:
My only intolerance is ignorance. Those who form their opinions without knowing why.
I believe in educating yourself on something before you state a contrary view.(Not directed at anyone here. This is a friendly discussion. Right?)
The only real problem that I have as far as Christianity goes, is the tendency in those who CLAIM to be Christians to think that those who don't think and feel like they do are going to Hell. True Christians are aware that other religions are just as valid as theirs are, it's just in the terminology. The methods are even pretty much the same.
Christianity was built on the Old Religions after all!
My only intolerance is ignorance. Those who form their opinions without knowing why.
I believe in educating yourself on something before you state a contrary view.(Not directed at anyone here. This is a friendly discussion. Right?)
The only real problem that I have as far as Christianity goes, is the tendency in those who CLAIM to be Christians to think that those who don't think and feel like they do are going to Hell. True Christians are aware that other religions are just as valid as theirs are, it's just in the terminology. The methods are even pretty much the same.
Christianity was built on the Old Religions after all!
"Absence is to love what wind is to fire...it extinguishes the small, enkindles the great."
--Comte Debussy-Rebutin
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Yea, tell me about it, I just spent an hour researching geocentrisim and the bible and managed to come away more confused than when I started. I won't bore you with my results, however it appears that geocentrisim is indeed what the bible promoted, given my limited abilities to interpret scripture.
Interesting, if I ever give up athesim, I'll look into paganisim.
On second thought, maybe I'll avoid *faith* after all
There's one big advantage to being an athiest, it allows one to question the value of ALL spiritual beliefs, from the established religions right down to those flakey insights one "discovers" on hallucinogens.
IMO the interesting part is watching people make decisions based on their spirituality, or to put it more bluntly, make decisions based on doing what they feel like doing because "something else" dictated it, and then seeing how they apply that spirituality to the consequences, be they good, bad, or indifferent.
Written by:
Seems to me that there is alot of cross-referencing going on, which then makes the bible a contradictory tale
Yea, tell me about it, I just spent an hour researching geocentrisim and the bible and managed to come away more confused than when I started. I won't bore you with my results, however it appears that geocentrisim is indeed what the bible promoted, given my limited abilities to interpret scripture.
Written by:
There are many no-no's in Paganism, as you say, but these are what I would consider to be a rational persons common sense values. Unfortunately, there are alot of people in the world who are far from rational and so, we have the state that the world is in.
Interesting, if I ever give up athesim, I'll look into paganisim.
Written by:
I think in the everyday life of everyday people of most religions, common sense is equally important. The pagans I've met on average don't seem to display any more or less common sense, and morality, than the Christians, agnostics or atheists I've met.
And they seem to be just as judgmental of people they don't like as everyone else is Can't remember how often I've heard "fxck Christians" or the bible being made fun of, which doesn't strike me as the most tolerant or unjudgmental of attitudes
On second thought, maybe I'll avoid *faith* after all
There's one big advantage to being an athiest, it allows one to question the value of ALL spiritual beliefs, from the established religions right down to those flakey insights one "discovers" on hallucinogens.
IMO the interesting part is watching people make decisions based on their spirituality, or to put it more bluntly, make decisions based on doing what they feel like doing because "something else" dictated it, and then seeing how they apply that spirituality to the consequences, be they good, bad, or indifferent.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
*disclaimer: I don't think you should be going to hell just because you're a pagan, this is merely in response to your post*
It's part of the Christian religion to have the concept of a hell, or whatever alternative descriptions are used, and people going there or not.
If you don't believe in it though I wouldn't think you'd have a problem with some people assuming you go there? That would be like me being bothered by someone thinking I might be reborn, and possibly as something other than a human.
I'm not sure what your definition of a "true" Christian is, but I don't see how that should be connected to the "validity" of a religion. I don't even think that you can attach validity to any kind of religion, but that's just me maybe. What I do think on the "true" Christian subject is that those who claim they're doing things right very probably don't, but those who admit to their mistakes, try and do things better and believe that in the end God can forgive them for fxcking up are doing a better job. Which still means they can believe in the concept of hell, and some religions being wrong.
Written by: fyrespirit
The only real problem that I have as far as Christianity goes, is the tendency in those who CLAIM to be Christians to think that those who don't think and feel like they do are going to Hell. True Christians are aware that other religions are just as valid as theirs are, it's just in the terminology. The methods are even pretty much the same.
Christianity was built on the Old Religions after all!
*disclaimer: I don't think you should be going to hell just because you're a pagan, this is merely in response to your post
*It's part of the Christian religion to have the concept of a hell, or whatever alternative descriptions are used, and people going there or not.
If you don't believe in it though I wouldn't think you'd have a problem with some people assuming you go there? That would be like me being bothered by someone thinking I might be reborn, and possibly as something other than a human.
I'm not sure what your definition of a "true" Christian is, but I don't see how that should be connected to the "validity" of a religion. I don't even think that you can attach validity to any kind of religion, but that's just me maybe. What I do think on the "true" Christian subject is that those who claim they're doing things right very probably don't, but those who admit to their mistakes, try and do things better and believe that in the end God can forgive them for fxcking up are doing a better job. Which still means they can believe in the concept of hell, and some religions being wrong.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
BINGO! And Judaism is even worse. Let me give just one example:
So the garment that Jewish men wear in Temple is a prayer shawl called a tallis or tallit (depending on dialect of Hebrew). Very observant Jews wear a four-corned undergarment also with tassles (tzitzit) on each corner called a tallit katan every day under their regular clothes. Walk into any synagogue these day and 99.999% chance you will see tassels, but NO blue cords.
Why not? I mean, Torah is the Word of G-d Himself, right? G-d said to put a blue thread on each tassel, right? So why no blue thread? There are other blue parts on the tallit, but G-d Himself said to put blue cords on each tzitzit, so why aren't they there???
The reason, it turns out, is because we've lost the exact recipe for the blue dye (was made from some sort of snail shell) and so "in order to avoid errors" the blue thread has been omitted from the tzitzit.
Now...here G-d says "put a blue thread on each fringe." He doesn't say "and use this particular recipe." I personally think that this policy illustrates the inherent hypocracy in the religion. Talmud, a commentary on Torah, which is known to be written by Rabbis, often supercedes Torah in spite of the fact that no words written by man can do that.
Another:
The last passage of this verse is sometimes translated "thou shalt not seethe kid in the milk of its mother." This is commonly interpreted as "Don't eat meat and milk together."
Many of the Kashrut (dietary laws, also known as the "Kosher laws") have some sound health and/or humanitarian reasons behind them. For example, don't eat things you find dead already(duh), don't eat shellfish(red tide), don't eat pig (trichonosis), cook your meat before you eat it (duh), kill animals in such a way that it causes the least amount of pain and then hang them tail-up so that the blood drains out, wash your hands before you eat (duh), etc. In fact the Kashrut involving the slaughter of animals are so strict that the USDA exempts Kosher butchers and slaughterhouses from many inspections. I'm not sure why mixing meat and milk is a bad idea, but it's also forbidden. They didn't get germ theory 6,000 years ago, but they figured out that certain practices got people sick much more often than others. There's a more detailed (although not entirely scientifically correct) discussion of Kashrut here.
So why are we not allowed to mix fowl with milk? The law applies to kid, specifically, but I can see how it could logically be expanded to any sort of animal that grows by drinking milk (mammals). But why fowl? And if fowl, then why not fish? And then Talmud, that same document that seems to supercede Torah goes on and forbids the cooking of meat/fowl and fish together!
Now these may seem to be rather pedestrian examples, what with the consumption of meat and blue dyes and all that (oh, Lev 19:19 forbids the wearing of any garment woven of two different kinds of materials, such as a cotton/polyester shirt, or something made of wool mixed with linen).
So, then let's look at an issue of more modern concern:
Now I'm a gay man (in case you weren't already painfully aware
). Gay men like to get into "well this version reads this way and this version reads such-and-such a way and originally this meant such-and-such..." Bullhonkey. I've gone over ten translations in two languages, on top of the original Hebrew (which I once had to learn) and I have to say that it's pretty unambiguous. Homosexuality is never mentioned, but men having sex with men is a mortal sin.
So please explain to me why my Rabbi in Michigan will wed gay couples? Can we wed if we promise not to screw? You can't call yourself Jewish and parade the Torah around the synagogue and then just...drop most of the 613 commandments that it contains! At least not if you want to call yourself consistent or logical.
And now you understand why I think the whole book is a load of hooey and that we'd do better to put it on a high, dusty shelf, and leave it there as a literary curiosity rather than devoting the time and resources to following and interpreting it that we do.
Written by: Pele
Seems to me that there is alot of cross-referencing going on, which then makes the bible a contradictory tale. No one can interpret that book incorrectly because I have seen more interpretations that bible versions.
BINGO! And Judaism is even worse. Let me give just one example:
Written by: Num 15:38-39
Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes.
So the garment that Jewish men wear in Temple is a prayer shawl called a tallis or tallit (depending on dialect of Hebrew). Very observant Jews wear a four-corned undergarment also with tassles (tzitzit) on each corner called a tallit katan every day under their regular clothes. Walk into any synagogue these day and 99.999% chance you will see tassels, but NO blue cords.
Why not? I mean, Torah is the Word of G-d Himself, right? G-d said to put a blue thread on each tassel, right? So why no blue thread? There are other blue parts on the tallit, but G-d Himself said to put blue cords on each tzitzit, so why aren't they there???
The reason, it turns out, is because we've lost the exact recipe for the blue dye (was made from some sort of snail shell) and so "in order to avoid errors" the blue thread has been omitted from the tzitzit.
Now...here G-d says "put a blue thread on each fringe." He doesn't say "and use this particular recipe." I personally think that this policy illustrates the inherent hypocracy in the religion. Talmud, a commentary on Torah, which is known to be written by Rabbis, often supercedes Torah in spite of the fact that no words written by man can do that.
Another:
Written by: Deut 4:21
Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.
Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
The last passage of this verse is sometimes translated "thou shalt not seethe kid in the milk of its mother." This is commonly interpreted as "Don't eat meat and milk together."
Many of the Kashrut (dietary laws, also known as the "Kosher laws") have some sound health and/or humanitarian reasons behind them. For example, don't eat things you find dead already(duh), don't eat shellfish(red tide), don't eat pig (trichonosis), cook your meat before you eat it (duh), kill animals in such a way that it causes the least amount of pain and then hang them tail-up so that the blood drains out, wash your hands before you eat (duh), etc. In fact the Kashrut involving the slaughter of animals are so strict that the USDA exempts Kosher butchers and slaughterhouses from many inspections. I'm not sure why mixing meat and milk is a bad idea, but it's also forbidden. They didn't get germ theory 6,000 years ago, but they figured out that certain practices got people sick much more often than others. There's a more detailed (although not entirely scientifically correct) discussion of Kashrut here.
So why are we not allowed to mix fowl with milk? The law applies to kid, specifically, but I can see how it could logically be expanded to any sort of animal that grows by drinking milk (mammals). But why fowl? And if fowl, then why not fish? And then Talmud, that same document that seems to supercede Torah goes on and forbids the cooking of meat/fowl and fish together!
Now these may seem to be rather pedestrian examples, what with the consumption of meat and blue dyes and all that (oh, Lev 19:19 forbids the wearing of any garment woven of two different kinds of materials, such as a cotton/polyester shirt, or something made of wool mixed with linen).
So, then let's look at an issue of more modern concern:
Written by: Lev 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Written by: Lev 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Written by: Nueva Versión Internacional, Lev 20:13
Si alguien se acuesta con otro hombre como quien se acuesta con una mujer, comete un acto abominable y los dos serán condenados a muerte, de la cual ellos mismos serán responsables.
Now I'm a gay man (in case you weren't already painfully aware
). Gay men like to get into "well this version reads this way and this version reads such-and-such a way and originally this meant such-and-such..." Bullhonkey. I've gone over ten translations in two languages, on top of the original Hebrew (which I once had to learn) and I have to say that it's pretty unambiguous. Homosexuality is never mentioned, but men having sex with men is a mortal sin.So please explain to me why my Rabbi in Michigan will wed gay couples? Can we wed if we promise not to screw?
You can't call yourself Jewish and parade the Torah around the synagogue and then just...drop most of the 613 commandments that it contains! At least not if you want to call yourself consistent or logical.And now you understand why I think the whole book is a load of hooey and that we'd do better to put it on a high, dusty shelf, and leave it there as a literary curiosity rather than devoting the time and resources to following and interpreting it that we do.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
Don't forget Leviticus 2.13 - a passage I just plucked randomly out of nowhere as a utilitarian bible reference in a another thread having no idea what it said and was shocked as to what it was...!
Don't forget Leviticus 2.13 - a passage I just plucked randomly out of nowhere as a utilitarian bible reference in a another thread having no idea what it said and was shocked as to what it was...!
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I'd quote it here, but really, I think you have to look it up yourself to believe it.
Written by: Neon_Shaolin
Don't forget Leviticus 2.13 - a passage I just plucked randomly out of nowhere as a utilitarian bible reference in a another thread having no idea what it said and was shocked as to what it was...!
I'd quote it here, but really, I think you have to look it up yourself to believe it.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
Yes you can imagine my shock at what was a supposedly nonsense bible reference number came up with that! Doesn't sound like anything I'D say is it...?
btw. Is it slightly wrong to use this emoticon in this particular thread...?
Written by: Leviticus 2:13
And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Yes you can imagine my shock at what was a supposedly nonsense bible reference number came up with that! Doesn't sound like anything I'D say is it...?
btw. Is it slightly wrong to use this emoticon
in this particular thread...? "I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Fine, ruin the surprise, whydontcha.
In the general sense? No. For you specifically? HELL YES. (sorry about the pun there.
)
Written by: Neon_Shaolin
Written by: Leviticus 2:13
And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
Fine, ruin the surprise, whydontcha.
Written by:
btw. Is it slightly wrong to use this emoticon
In the general sense? No. For you specifically? HELL YES. (sorry about the pun there.
) -Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
I meant for anyone to use an Angel symbol - a very Christian image - in a thread that kinda requires religious impartiality...
Why specially me...?
I meant for anyone to use an Angel symbol - a very Christian image - in a thread that kinda requires religious impartiality...
Why specially me...?
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Err...it's used in Judaism and Islam too.
Written by: Neon_Shaolin
I meant for anyone to use an Angel symbol - a very Christian image...
Err...it's used in Judaism and Islam too.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
another religious debate *sigh*...
Personally I favour "patchwork" religions... i.e. "make up your own"... See, even IF the Bible has come from God, it were still humans who wrote it down and interpreted it. All according to the time and culture they were living in.
Many of the fundamental rules in the Bible are according to the circumstances.
Since circumstances change and mankind evolves, certain rules are no longer applicable, no tjust "out of fashion" - yet fundamentalists fear that if ONE ammendmend is changed, the entire context is lost - much like the US constitution (on the possession of guns for example and the flawed electoral system).
Certain rules simply arrange the ways, humans can live together and with themselves. "You shalt not kill (another human)" not only is a law because otherwise people would slaughter each other-wise, but also because a murderer (if in a half-way sane state of mind) may always fear to loose his own life. Much like a thief is mostly afraid to get mugged. If you practice adultery, the likelyhood that your spouse will have to show you how it feels to be "betrayed" is certainly higher, "trust" will become just a word in the dictionary and it may even become a repetitive pattern. If you are looking at the power of sexual addiction, the ruling not to have sex before marriage gets a slightly different context...
Now we are certainly facing an evolution of faith and it gets less important what other people have discovered as the truth for themselves - the focus is on: What do YOU experience as "the truth" for yourself?
We had this layouted in a few threads upon morality and the nature of god, ect. and to me the bottom line becomes "do onto others as you want others to do on you". Different people have different levels of morals and they contradict each other.
"Reward and punishment from god" is a concept - nothing more. I'd like to get further and state, that it's bullscrap and the way the three monotheistic religions look to define God is IMHO blasphemy, as God is much greater then they can imagine in their narrowed perception.
Whether or not the rules in the Bible were given by the Lord Almighty himself is not that important - we, as human beings, should cease to act like dogs and stop obiding rules that are obviously there to test our intelligence.
In order not to gain much more lenght: To me it's perfectly allright if you don't follow any of the institutional religions and make up your own - as long as you don't interfer with my freedom and wellbeing...
In my world the "holy scripts" are guidelines and guidelines they remain. Personally I am not looking for a membership in the overcrowded heavens of islamic suicide bombers - for say - who eternally party with 20 virgins... oh... hang on a second... (did you hear the rumors that those are to remain virgins??? - the mullahs just don't dare to spread the word)
If I may dispense my advice: Watch the movie "What the bleep do we know?" - reputed scientists provide a radical different view on this world and how it was created, the nature of God and the power of our biological predesposition...
Namaste InLak'ech
another religious debate *sigh*...
Personally I favour "patchwork" religions... i.e. "make up your own"... See, even IF the Bible has come from God, it were still humans who wrote it down and interpreted it. All according to the time and culture they were living in.
Many of the fundamental rules in the Bible are according to the circumstances.
Since circumstances change and mankind evolves, certain rules are no longer applicable, no tjust "out of fashion" - yet fundamentalists fear that if ONE ammendmend is changed, the entire context is lost - much like the US constitution (on the possession of guns for example and the flawed electoral system).
Certain rules simply arrange the ways, humans can live together and with themselves. "You shalt not kill (another human)" not only is a law because otherwise people would slaughter each other-wise, but also because a murderer (if in a half-way sane state of mind) may always fear to loose his own life. Much like a thief is mostly afraid to get mugged. If you practice adultery, the likelyhood that your spouse will have to show you how it feels to be "betrayed" is certainly higher, "trust" will become just a word in the dictionary and it may even become a repetitive pattern. If you are looking at the power of sexual addiction, the ruling not to have sex before marriage gets a slightly different context...
Now we are certainly facing an evolution of faith and it gets less important what other people have discovered as the truth for themselves - the focus is on: What do YOU experience as "the truth" for yourself?
We had this layouted in a few threads upon morality and the nature of god, ect. and to me the bottom line becomes "do onto others as you want others to do on you". Different people have different levels of morals and they contradict each other.
"Reward and punishment from god" is a concept - nothing more. I'd like to get further and state, that it's bullscrap and the way the three monotheistic religions look to define God is IMHO blasphemy, as God is much greater then they can imagine in their narrowed perception.
Whether or not the rules in the Bible were given by the Lord Almighty himself is not that important - we, as human beings, should cease to act like dogs and stop obiding rules that are obviously there to test our intelligence.
In order not to gain much more lenght: To me it's perfectly allright if you don't follow any of the institutional religions and make up your own - as long as you don't interfer with my freedom and wellbeing...
In my world the "holy scripts" are guidelines and guidelines they remain. Personally I am not looking for a membership in the overcrowded heavens of islamic suicide bombers - for say - who eternally party with 20 virgins... oh... hang on a second...
(did you hear the rumors that those are to remain virgins??? - the mullahs just don't dare to spread the word) If I may dispense my advice: Watch the movie "What the bleep do we know?" - reputed scientists provide a radical different view on this world and how it was created, the nature of God and the power of our biological predesposition...
Namaste InLak'ech
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com